> Hi Georg > Super impressive work! :-) looks very good, indeed
> I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but I have a question. One > concern from a long thread on Doc-Sig a long time ago, is that ReST > did not at the time possess the ability to nicely markup the objects > as LaTeX macros do. Is your transformation losing markup information > from the original docs? e.g. are you still marking classes as classes > and functions as functions in the ReST source, or is it converting > from qualified markup to "style" markup (e.g., to generic literals > instead of class/function/variable/keyword argument docutils roles, > etc.). If you solved that problem, how did you solve it? Is the > resulting ReST pretty? Do you think we can build a better index? > > My beef with using ReST for documentation, as much as I like ReST, is > that unless we have roles and structure for declaring functions, > classes, etc. it would remain inferior to the LaTeX macros, which in > spite of being LaTeX, qualify the kinds of objects to some extent. i thought the libctypes documentation in 2.5 was done with the docpy-writer, but i might be completely wrong. cheers -- _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - Doc-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
